Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?

Ivan Senji ivan.senji_REMOVE_ at _THIS__gmail.com
Mon Sep 4 03:21:58 PDT 2006


xs0 wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> xs0 wrote:
>>> This is almost OT, but for several Java coders I know, not being able 
>>> to type
>>>
>>> new int[3][4][5]
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> new int[][] {
>>>    { bibi(), bubu() },
>>>    { a+b, c+d }
>>> }
>>>
>>> made a _far_ worse first impression than the version number (as in, 
>>> quote, "you're kidding, right?"). And it seems so simple to 
>>> implement.. If you ask me, you really need to add those before going 
>>> 1.0 (it's bad enough for Javans that Interface[] is not Object[] ;)
>>
>> My experiences with people who won't use D because it doesn't have 
>> specific feature X is that they won't use it when feature X is 
>> implemented, or when Y, Z, A, B and C are implemented. They're used to 
>> the language they currently use, and will never change.
>>
>> We can easily get sucked into a rat race trying to please people who 
>> haven't the slightest inclination to use D (or any language other than 
>> the one they currently use).
> 
> Well, I somewhat disagree. My company is more or less strictly Java, but 
> when I made a internal presentation on D, a surprising number of people 
> showed up and most of them seemed genuinely interested/fascinated. So, I 
> don't think it's the case that they don't have the slightest inclination 
> to use something else.
> 
>> I'd much rather work on the features the people who have *already* 
>> switched to D need to do outrageously cool things.
> 
>> You mean Java doesn't have free functions? No out parameters? No 
>> nested functions? No templates? No versioning? No operator 
>> overloading? No lazy evaluation? No 80 bit floats? No stack 
>> allocation? No structs? No array slicing? No direct access to C? 
>> You're kidding, right? <g>
> 
> I 100% agree Java is lacking in many ways (and to be fair, it has some 
> advantages, too), but if you're aiming for a good first impression, you 
> also need to care of the basic stuff. The two things I mentioned seem so 
> basic for a language with dynamic arrays, that I totally fail to 
> understand why you're so reluctant to implement them; considering the 
> unofficial wish list, I'm not the only one. Would you care for any 
> language that (regardless of other features) made you type "return a+b" 
> like this:
> 
> accumulator foo;
> foo.add(a);
> foo.add(b);
> return foo.result;
> 
> Now, consider the remarkable similarity between that case and "auto foo 
> = new int[3][4][5]" versus

Actually this works. But foo cannot be initialized with an initializer.



More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list